UK Antiwar disarmers Allowed to Speak of War Crimes

international | anti-war / imperialism | press release Wednesday May 12, 2004 14:56 by Eoin Dubsky - Trident Ploughshares

This morning at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, Mr. Justice
Grigson delivered his ruling on what legal arguments will be allowed in the
trials of the "Fairford Five," anti-war protesters awaiting trial for
disarmament actions at a Gloucestershire air base. In three separate
actions at RAF Fairford last year, all five defendants tried to reach and
damage US bomber planes, or damaged aircraft support vehicles, in their
efforts to resist the war on Iraq.

In a surprise move, the judge allowed that "secondary effects" of
government foreign policy could be open to examination in British courts -
although not whether the war on Iraq was itself illegal. Whether "secondary
effects" would include such controversial acts of war as the loading of
cluster bombs onto the US planes at Fairford, remains to be seen.

The judge also allowed the possibility of defences under the Criminal
Damage Act of 1971 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967. Defendants might, he
said, argue that they used "reasonable force" to protect property, or to
prevent what they honestly believed to be war crimes. Whether it was
"reasonable" for the accused to feel driven to protect the citizens of Iraq
by taking direct action at Fairford as they did, is a matter the judge
considers best left to a jury.

The accused have said that the Iraq war was itself a criminal act, and that
they have lawful excuse for their resistance. Today, in his written
judgement, Mr. Justice Grigson formally rejected this claim. As in his
statements in Bristol crown court two weeks ago, the judge ruled that UK
foreign policy is protected by "Crown prerogative," and that matters such
as the lawfulness of a war cannot be examined in a British court.

In James Bond's phrase, the British and US governments still have "Licence
to kill," and to set themselves above the law of the land.

Lawyers for the Fairford Five have already said they will seek a new ruling
from the Court of Appeal, on whether discussion of the lawfulness of the
war is "non-justiciable."

With an explicitness unusual in a High Court judgement, Mr. Justice Grigson
gives leave to both Crown and Defence lawyers to challenge any of his
rulings, as they see fit.

More information:

Louise James ( solicitor, Stokoe Partnership) :

Tel. 07714 - 851-043 / 020 8558 8884